The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here.

Deletion is reversible, but only by administrators, so other deletions occur only after discussion, unless they are proposed deletions. Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.[1]

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.

Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion for more information). A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors.

The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. However, if the sole author blanks a page (other than a userspace page or category page), this can be taken as a deletion request, and the blank page tagged for deletion with {{Db-blanked}} (see G7). If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used.

Introduction to criteria

Abbreviations (G12, A3...) are often used to refer to these criteria, and are given in each section. For example, "CSD G12" refers to criterion 12 under general (copyright infringement) and "CSD U1" refers to criterion 1 under user (user request). These abbreviations can be confusing to new editors or anyone else unfamiliar with this page; in many situations a plain-English explanation of why a specific page was deleted is preferable.

Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media files for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators to the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (within <noinclude>...</noinclude> if nominating a Template: page); if the page is protected, place the template on the corresponding Talk page instead, along with an explanation of which page to delete. Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as "Db-X" with "Db" standing for "delete because". A list of the "Db-X" templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates.

If a page falls under more than one of the criteria, instead of adding multiple tags it is possible to add a single {{Db-multiple}} tag to cover them all. For example, if an article seems both to be blatantly promotional (G11) and also to fail to indicate significance of its subject (A7) then the tag {{Db-multiple|G11|A7}} can be used to indicate both of these concerns. The article can then be speedily deleted if an administrator assesses it and decides that either or both of the criteria apply.

There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed before). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7).

Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria.

Pages that have survived deletion discussions

When applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions:

G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion.

G6, technical deletions

G8, pages dependent on nonexistent pages

G9, office actions

G12, unambiguous copyright violations

A2, foreign language articles on other Wikimedia projects

A5, transwikied pages

F8, images on Commons

F9, unambiguous copyright infringement

U1, user requests deletion within their own userspace

These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. However, newly discovered copyright violations should be tagged for G12 if the violation existed in all previous revisions of the article. G5 may be also used at discretion subject to meeting the criterion outlined above.

List of criteria

General

These apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc. Read the specifics for each criterion to see where and how they apply.

G2. Test pages

This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It does not apply to pages in the user namespace. It does not apply to valid but unused or duplicate templates (although criterion T3may apply).

G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes

This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax.

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[2] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.

To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic.

Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect/page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it.

Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace.

G7. Author requests deletion

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.[3]) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

talk page archives (except article talk page archives where the corresponding article and main talk page have been deleted and the page is not otherwise useful to Wikipedia – check for page-moves and merges before using G8 on article-talk-page-archives; the parent article might still exist under a different name)

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement

This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section here, which has more specific instructions.

G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages

This applies to disambiguation pages which either (1) have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page; or (2) regardless of title, disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages. If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect.

A1. No context

This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.[5]Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." It applies only to very short articles. Note that context is different from content, treated in A3. This excludes coherent {{Non-English}} material, and poorly translated material. If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. Don't tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created.[6]

A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project

This applies to articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project. If the article is not the same as an article on another project, use the template {{Not English}} instead, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation.

A3. No content

This applies to articles consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, questions that should have been asked at a noticeboard, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. This criterion excludes poor writing, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Don't tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created.[6]

A5. Transwikied articles

This applies to any article that consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary), a primary source that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wikisource), or an article on any subject that has been discussed at articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded.

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content,[7] or organized event[8] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[9] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about products, books, films, TV programmes, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)

This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles.

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic

This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages. (When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion.)

This deletion rationale should only be used rarely. In the vast majority of duplicate articles, the title used is a plausible misspelling or alternate name for the main article, and a redirect should be created instead. This criterion should be used only if its title could be speedily deleted as a redirect.

A11. Obviously invented

This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: This is not intended for hoaxes (see CSD G3).[10]

R3. Implausible typos

This applies to recently created redirects from implausibletypos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move,[3] unless the moved page was also recently created. It also does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects, including redirects created by merges,[11] or to redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page.

This applies to redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons).

Other issues with redirects

For any redirects, including soft redirects, that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedily deleted. In some cases it may be possible to make a useful redirect by changing the target instead of deleting it. Redirects that do not work because of software limitations, such as redirects to special pages or to pages on other wikis, may be converted to soft redirects if they have a non-trivial history or other valid uses.

For reversal of redirects, use {{Db-move}}, a special case of {{Db-g6}}.

Files

Note: These criteria formerly began with I (e.g. I1, I6, I9) but have since been replaced with F, without the actual criteria being changed. This was because the file namespace was formerly known as the image namespace.

F1. Redundant

This applies to unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format. This excludes images in the Wikimedia Commons; for these, see criterion F8.[12]

F2. Corrupt, missing or empty file

This applies to files that are corrupt, missing, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information.[13] This also includes file description pages for Commons files, except pages containing information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).[14]

F3. Improper license

This criterion is used to flag media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". These may be deleted, unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. Files licensed under versions of the GFDL earlier than 1.3, without allowing for later versions or other licenses, may be deleted.

F4. Lack of licensing information

This applies to media files lacking the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status after being identified assuch for seven days. Administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself for a source before deleting under this criterion.

F5. Orphaned non-free use images

This applies to images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain and that are not used in any article. These may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. This includes previous revisions of the image. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.

Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:Rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image.

Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution.

The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons. To avoid deletion at Commons, please ensure the Commons page description has all of the following:

Name and date of death of the creator of the artistic work represented by the file, or else clear evidence that a free license was given. If anonymous, ensure the page description provides evidence that establishes the anonymous status.

Country where the artistic work represented by the file was situated, or where it was first published.

Date when the artistic work represented by the file was created or first published, depending on the copyright law of the origin country.

All image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.

All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages (the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended).

If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion.

If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, all local references to the image must be updated to point to the title used at Commons.

The image is not protected. Do not delete protected images, even if there is an identical copy on Commons, unless the image is no longer in use (check what links here). They are usually locally uploaded and protected here since they are used in the interface or in some widely used high-risk template. Deleting the local copy of an image used in the interface does break things. More about high-risk images.

F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement

This applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis will not be released under such a license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{Db-filecopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

F10. Useless non-media files

This criterion is meant for files that are neither image, sound, nor video files; are not used in any article; and have no foreseeable placement in an article. Note that the following files are rarely sound, image, or video: .doc, .pdf, .ps, .html, .rtf, .txt, .xls, and .zip files. Examples of image, sound, and video files are: .jpg, .gif, .png, .svg, .mpg, .ogg, and .wav. This is not a comprehensive list of files that can be deleted, nor is an extension alone enough reason to delete; this criterion is based on file content.

F11. No evidence of permission

If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, television images, album covers, logos that are notsimple enough to be public domain, etc.) should be speedily deleted per reason F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement), unless fair-use can be claimed. Files tagged with {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criterion. (Please note that the backlog for messages sent to the permissions-en queue is currently 260 days. You may wish to wait at least this amount of time before tagging OTRS pending images for deletion.) Images tagged {{OTRS received}} whose permissions have not been confirmed after 30 days may be deleted immediately under this criterion, without waiting an additional seven days, provided a check of the ticket is performed by an OTRS agent to confirm that no further interaction is ongoing.

U1. User request

Personal user pages and subpages (but notuser talk pages) upon request by their user. This also includes editnotices for user pages. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. Pages which have previously been moved are only eligible if all previous titles were in the user's userspace. Note: The template does not display on certain pages (such as .css and .js pages), but its categorization will work.

U2. Nonexistent user

User pages of users that do not exist (check Special:Listusers), except user pages for IP users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's user page, and the previous name of a renamed user.

U3. Non-free galleries

Galleries in the userspace that consist mostly or entirely of "fair use" or non-free images. Wikipedia's non-free content policy prohibits the use of non-free content in userspace, even content that the user has uploaded; use of content in the public domain or under a free license is acceptable.

Templates that are unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy, e.g. disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles and speedy deletion templates for issues other than speedy deletion criteria.

T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances

Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.

P1. Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article

Any portal that would fail any of the active criteria for speedy deletion of articles is valid under this criterion. When deleting or nominating a portal page under this criterion, remember to indicate which article CSD criterion applies to it.

P2. Underpopulated portal

Any portal based on a topic for which there is only a stub header article or fewer than three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to present under the title of that portal.

Exceptional circumstances

These temporary criteria apply to large scale cleanups of problematic pages that would overwhelm the normal deletion processes. Criteria should be deprecated when no longer needed. Consensus for X2 was established in this discussion.

X2. Pages created by the content translation tool

This applies to any page created by the content translation tool before 27 July 2016, if there is no non-machine-translated version in the history. Administrators are asked to add "CXT" or "X2" to their deletion rationale in order to clarify that it was done under this temporary criterion. They must check to ensure that the tool did not overwrite an acceptable article. This criterion will be rescinded when the community concludes the situation has been adequately handled.[15] The majority of these pages are listed on a report.

Non-criteria

Commonly denied CSD reasons

The following proposals for new speedy deletion criteria are frequently raised, but have repeatedly failed to gain consensus:

How-to articles

Essay articles

Expansion of A7 to include books, software, schools and/or other subjects

Neologisms

Unsourced articles

A7 scope

A7 does not apply to any other subject that does not indicate importance. Expanding the scope of A7 to different subjects (such as products, software, books, schools, etc.) has been proposed several times in the past and failed to gain consensus. Amongst the reasons for those rejections were that such subjects are not created often enough to require speedy deletion (such articles can be handled by proposed deletion or by listing the article at articles for deletion), that such subjects cannot be objectively covered in A7's wording and that admins are not able to assess claims of importance for certain subjects. Before proposing a change to A7 to expand its scope, please check whether your proposal has not already been discussed on the talk page (archives).

The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion.

Less-obvious hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism.

Failure to assert importance but not an A7, A9 or A11 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7, A9 or A11 under those criteria.

Author deletion requests made in bad faith. Author deletion requests made in bad faith, out of frustration, or in an attempt to revoke their freely-licensed contributions are not granted. However, anyone may request deletion of pages in their userspace.

Author deletion requests after others have contributed substantially. If other editors have substantially edited an article (i.e. more than just minor corrections or maintenance tagging), the original author may not request deletion under G7 because the work of others is involved.

Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply.

Copies that are not copyright violations. If content appears both here and somewhere else (possibly in modified form), consider the possibility that Wikipedia's is the original version and the other site copied from us. Alternatively, the same author may have written both versions, or the original may be free content.

PNG / GIF files replaced by JPEG images. JPEG encoding discards information that may be important later. Do not delete the original PNG / GIF files.

Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain.

User and user talk pages of IP addresses. Although users are encouraged to create Wikipedia accounts, unregistered users are still allowed to edit Wikipedia, and are identified by their IP addresses. If an unregistered user has a static IP address, it may have a user page and/or user talk page associated with it, and even for non-static IP addresses, the history can contain important discussions or information that may be of interest.

A file that isn't a sound, video, or image file. To be deleted under F10, a file must have no potential usefulness and not be used in any articles. Files that are in use or might be put to an appropriate use, even if not sound, video, or image, should not be deleted without wider discussion.

An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. It may be reconsidered after translation whether the article merits deletion, retention or improvement by means of a suitable tag. However, if it already exists on another Wikimedia project, it might be speedily deletable under criterion A2.

Subject request. Sometimes somebody claiming to be the subject of a biographical article requests deletion of the article, or even blanks the article. Article subjects do not have an automatic right to have their articles deleted. Such requests are considered on a case-by-case basis according to the deletion policy. Nor does such a criterion apply to namespaces other than article space: for example, pages in the Wikipedia namespace devoted to a discussion about a particular editor.

Orphaned pages or redirects. A page cannot be deleted just because no other pages link to it. This includes redirects – even if 'What links here' returns nothing, a redirect may be a likely search phrase, or have links to it from outside Wikipedia.

Procedure for administrators

Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. Also, in general the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified.

Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, or there was actually a cut-and-paste move involved. Also:

The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page.

The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page.

The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it on good reason.

What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be re-created, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.

Obsolete criteria

These criteria were used in the past but are no longer valid criteria. They are kept here for historical reference and to preserve numbering. Most were merged into broader criteria. Only three have been entirely repealed; two did not have consensus before being enacted, and the third was meant to be temporary.

A4. Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title

Footnotes

^In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.

^ The result of the most recent deletion discussion controls. This means that if the most recent discussion was "keep" or a default to keep through no consensus, G4 does not apply. Likewise, an article that was deleted through its most recent discussion, but was kept in earlier discussions, is subject to the criterion and may be deleted. (Discussion.)

^ abPage moves are excluded because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them. Such redirects must be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion before deletion. However, redirects that were obviously made in error can be deleted as G6, technical deletions.

^Note that new editors sometimes mistakenly start article drafts on talk pages that have no article. If you see this, move the draft to the draft space or to the user's userspace, making sure the new user is listed as author and not you.

^ abConsensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled before that delay passes, to ensure the article is reviewed at a later time.

^Web-delivered content (like individual radio or television programs telecast on the web) – as opposed to web created content – may not necessarily qualify on A7; As per WP:Notability (media), "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience."

^Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.

^Before deleting this latter type of file/page, check whether the MediaWiki engine can read it by previewing a resized thumbnail of it. Even if it renders, if it contains significant superfluous information that cannot be accounted for as metadata directly relating to the media data, it may be deleted. It is always preferred to correct the problem by uploading a file that contains only the good data plus acceptable metadata.

^Content from file description pages that is relevant to the Commons should be copied over before deleting the local page. If necessary, copy the attribution history as well.